Ascorbic acid PEG-2L is superior for early morning colonoscopies in colorectal cancer screening programs: a prospective non-randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The quality of colon cleansing and the tolerability of anterograde preparation are essential to the success of colorectal cancer screening. AIM: To compare the tolerability and efficacy of low-volume preparations vs the standard regimen in individuals scheduled for an early morning colonoscopy. STUDY: Participants in a population-based colorectal cancer screening program using the fecal immunochemical test who were scheduled for a colonoscopy from 09:00 a.m. to 10:20 a.m. were prospectively included and assigned to: (1) control group (PEG-ELS 4L): PEG 4L and electrolytes; (2) group AscPEG-2L: a combination of PEG and ascorbic acid 2L; and (3) group PiMg: sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate 500 mL plus 2L of clear fluids. Tolerability was evaluated with a questionnaire and the quality of bowel preparation with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. RESULTS: A total of 292 participants were included: 98 in the PEG-ELS 4L control group, 96 in the AscPEG-2L study group and 98 in the PiMg study group. Low-volume treatments were better tolerated than the standard solution (AscPEG-2L 94.8% and PiMg 93.9% vs PEG-ELS 4L 75.5%; p < 0.0001). The effectiveness of AscPEG-2L was superior to that of PEG-ELS 4L and PiMg (p = 0.011 and p = 0.032, respectively). Patient acceptance was higher for single-dose than for split-dose administration but efficacy was higher with the split dose than with other doses. CONCLUSIONS: In early morning colonoscopies, ascPEG-2L appears to be the best option, especially when administered in a split-dose.

[Application of a critical incident reporting and analysis system in an anesthesiology department]. / Utilización de un sistema de comunicación y análisis de incidentes críticos en un servicio de anestesia.

OBJECTIVES: To ascertain the changes in anesthesia-related morbidity and mortality after application of a scheme for reporting critical incidents and to assess the effect of implementing preventive measures against the detected errors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We defined a critical incident to be any situation in which the margin of safety for the patient was reduced or might have been reduced. We analyzed data from the period between January 1999 and December 2004. RESULTS: The number of critical incidents was 547 (0.79% of 68627 anesthetic procedures). Human error was identified in 279 incidents (51%). The most frequent factors underlying errors were wrong diagnosis of the situation, communication problems, and failure to check equipment and drugs. The patient suffered no adverse effect in 81.8% of the incidents; 78.9% were considered preventable. Introducing an equipment checklist before anesthesia reduced the number of incidents from 90 events in 21809 cases in 31 months to 34 events out of 22064 cases in 29 months; chi2 test, P < 0.05; odds ratio (OR), 2.68; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.80-3.98). Labeling syringes reduced errors in the administration of medications from 45 errors in 21 809 cases in 31 months to 27 in 22064 cases in 29 months; chi2, P < 0.05; OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04-2.72. CONCLUSIONS: Corrective measures were adopted as a result of the incident reporting scheme. Some of the measures led to a statistically significant reduction in equipment and drug administration errors.